Ethics

[MrWhereItsAt]

Perhaps we have a flexible code of ethics as argued by minos, that we stick to, and the only exceptions are where "special powers" type polls have given the Cabinet the green light for razing that city or enslaving that settler.

I see ethical considerations as a check on the power of the Cabinet - the nation must agree for a less ethical action to proceed. Of course there will be times that our ethics don't stop us from, say, razing the capital of a particularly belligerent enemy - but these should be exceptions, and such situations are to be considered individually, else there is no way to prevent the Govt from inadvertently souring relations with our neighbours.

A city razed by default could lead to hundreds of turns more war than envisaged, leading to draining of our resources. A spur of the moment enslavement could mean we can never again get that luxury back that we so badly need. Let us not have a(nother) set of immutable laws for ethics, but instead make it so the Government must poll before committing such dastardly acts.

[Robber Baron]

notyoueither nails it, in my opinion. Dictating a code of ethics violates the highest ethic that applies in our situation: namely, that the people should decide democratically, generation by generation, what our behavior should be.

[Papa Chubby]

That is something that I totally agree with you Robber baron. We should decide on a code of ethics for our generation, if the next one wants to amend it, so be it.

[OPD]

WTF who brought this up again.

Anyway over the last few chats I've started to think more and more that the game is ours and we might aswell have already won. If we were to stop fighting wars completely I think we'd still easily win a space race. Thats why I think we should open ourselves up more to the role playing and democracy side of the game. We are no longer constrained by the fact that we have to so certain things because it's the best way to win. We have the freedom to make decisions based on things other than what is best for the game. Perhaps a new age could be upon us where we see this as coming together to run a nation rather than coming together to run a computer game.

I chose this thread as it is one of the best and a true classic. Things like this could take us a step further so that we could go beyond the game itself.

People all over the world come together to play computer games like quake 3 etc but we can come together and run a nation.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by OPD
Anyway over the last few chats I've started to think more and more that the game is ours and we might aswell have already won.

I agree, it would be hard to lose the game at this point. This would be where I would typically lose interest and start a new game, but I'd probably "play" with some of the AI civs first.

[Arnelos]

OPD,

In other words, we should progress from progressing our civilization forward, top out at our golden age, and hurredly get to the task of executing our civilization's lengthy "decline"?

(has been edited)

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Arnelos
OPD,

In other words, we should progress from progressing our civilization forward, top out at our golden age, and hurredly get on the period of our lengthy "decline"

Let the decadence begin!

[Hot Mustard]

WOW! What an awesome thread! Makes me sorry I went out to dinner and a movie tonight. Seems as though eewolf has already departed, but should he reappear - thank you heartily for instigating this dialogue!

Ethics and morality have been absent in practically every computer game I've ever played. With the rampant success of FPS games and online RPG games with Player Killers, I had given up hope of people wanting to induce values into their game play.

I am all for this community experimenting with these difficult topics, including environmental ones. Does anyone else remember terraforming the entire map in Civ II to irrigated, railroaded, plains - you could even do the water before they fixed a bug! But what did it look like? It looked horrible! I experimented with games where I did no permanent improvements, only to lose badly - but I had fun trying. Imagine a game where we made enemies of civs that condoned slavery after a certain tech level, or that performed mass clearcutting w/o replanting...

Just some more food for thought.

[notyoueither]

You might want to pause and give serious thought before declaring clear cutting as something that should not be done...

[UnOrthOdOx]

A classic thread. Nice to see it back on top.

I have been thinking on the clearing of Jungles. What would be the harm of setting aside a designated area as a 'National Park' to never be improved beyond roads? It may be a bit early for such things, but...

[Hot Mustard]

I know that banning or even reducing clear-cutting would not be popular. But think about this: This game spans hundreds of years in only a few turns - how long do you think it would take before the world population would choke of CO2 poisoning due to lack of oxygen (because there's no trees!).

[Zero]

If EEwolf is still here I would like to ask him this:

What is ethics?

Is bombarding civilians in a game ethical? Is bombarding civilians in reality ethical? Perhaps if one can define wat ethics is, we can begin thinking whether how ethics should be played in this demo game.

[Zero]

Originally posted by dejon

Ethics and morality have been absent in practically every computer game I've ever played. With the rampant success of FPS games and online RPG games with Player Killers, I had given up hope of people wanting to induce values into their game play.

That is not true at all, Just because you think you don't see ethical practices done in online games doesn't mean there is no values. For example concerning player killing, Some people player kill. Some people player kill after being frustrated by being f--ked over by the player killers, some people only player kill players that might player kill them. some people don't player kill at all. People just have different values. I hope you didn't simply declare that ethics don't exist in online game simply because what you have in mind as 'ethics' doesn't seem to be adopted for the majority. Cause that would be being self-centered. You can't determine that ethics doesn't exist without setting a standard.

Like I said, What is morality? What is ethics? when asked Wat will your answer be? Are you sure of your answer? Should your ethics be basis for entirety of your life or only partial? If you lived in a world where your current ethics would be shunned by others, will your opinion change? In the end, is there really an universal form of ethic/morality? (Philosophy's answer to last is Yes, We would like to think there is some universal morals and ethics)

[Aggie]

Well traditional interpretation is that if you target civilians it is a war crime, however in this game we are shelling enemy units in defensive postions in the city and if civilians are hit it is unintinional and legal. The exception could be if the only units are down to 1 hitpoint and there are no other improvements(legitimate targets) in the cities. Now nuclear weapons are another matter and I have extreme problems with them(actually I have never used them in a civ3 game, I have used planet busters in a SMAC game though) if we faced a situation such as the US faced at the end of WWII( where civilian death amount by weapons is much less than by invasion) then it can be justified though it becomes the old arguement do the ends justify the means, in that case if was kill 200k vs many times that in invasion. But there is another arguement that yes we saved million of japanesse but you still must never target civilians. Generally I think we will cross that BIG bridge if we get there, personally I can see no useful use for nuclear weapons in our game. Also my test experience is that in this game nuclear weapons don't end the war they make all the world attack me, ie no fear factor. However I look forward to such arguement later in this game. Perhaps this situation will occur where an enemy is on the verge of creating a spaceship and our only chance to win is to nuke there capital and take it. Dejon the fact is(and this is my field) the ocean system that provides oxygen and this is the large" co2" sink in the earths ecosystem. This doesn't mean that there are not legitamate reasons to save jungle(there most certainly are erosion,moisture effects come to mind), but o2 isn't paricularly one of them.
Aggie

[Hot Mustard]

Calc II:

You are quite right - I did not make myself clear in that post. I was bemoaning the fact that, with some exceptions, I typically have not seen people try to use Real Life ethics, values, or morality (use whatever label you like, we could go on and on trying to define their distinctions) in their gaming. I understand that it IS gaming, and pure escapism from RL for people, but it still bothers me that such a large majority simply want to kill, kill, kill in their entertainment. Whether it is FPS gamers, RPG gamers (PKs or those who are hunting everything else - not many just take up professions), or even CIV Demo communities, the first inclination is always death and destruction. Yes, most games themselves are geared towards it, but not all, and those are the ones we play, and there is little, if any, attempt to play them differently.

Aggie:

I won't dispute your professional opinion. I was under the impression that trees converted CO2 into Oxygen for us, and that the ocean system merely recycled all forms of water - but that is merely grade 10 science - I avoided the sciences after that point.